Many states suspend drivers licenses for a host of reasons, mainly to collect money. For example, failure to pay parking tickets, library fines, child support... It's just a little bit of leverage that bureaucrats discovered they could use. Wait until the feds have this same capability. Want to be allowed to travel by plane? Better get those library books turned in, terrorist!
In his classic Steal This Book (a fascinating read, now online for free) 60s activist Abbie Hoffman described the following way to get a free trip to Vegas. Many casinos (at least back then) offered free round trip airfare and a room for a weekend, even meals in some cases, but you had to buy like $500 in chips. These were specially marked chips that could not be cashed in, so you had to gamble them away. The trick he suggested was for whoever goes with you to buy an equal number of standard chips upon arrival, so you have $1000 between you, half marked and half not. Then you both sit at a roulette table and bet against each other; one person bets on black, the other bets on red, identical amounts. So you break even on every bet except when 00 comes up. The person with the marked chips bets only those chips. All payoffs are made in standard chips. When the marked chips have all been lost, the two of you should still have a total of approximately $1000 in standard chips. At that point you cash in and enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Welcome to the United States of Intellectual Property, where ownership is everything. Our surveillance cameras observed you taking photos of privately owned structures through the airplane window, and the in-seat microphone recorded you repeating part of Letterman's Top Ten list from last night. Here's your copy of the DMCA. The lawyer assigned to you will be contacting you shortly regarding the initial series of lawsuits you'll be defending yourself against. We hope you enjoy your stay.
I applaud Britain being the first country to officially sanction this research. Here in the United States of Christian Fundamentalism we won't be seeing that happen for a while. Just don't get too far along with it before our corporations buy all your patents, or you might be added to our fearless leader's must-conquer list.
I am Blong, of the Quaz nebula. By using my name without permission you have violated galactic copysnark law. Your puny planet will be destrobulated in 65 metrons.
So true. My old clueless IT director used to post Gartner group quotes outside his cube, next to his huge multicolor graphs of disk space usage, CPU time and other stats about our VAXCluster. The graphs were printed on a $14,000 large-format Tektronix printer, bought only for that purpose and used only by him. These are the guys who make decisions like, "From now on everybody in the company will use software X, because Garner Group says maintaining a heterogeneous platform isn't cost effective (85%)."
I wouldn't have thought of the endless legal questions, but somebody surely will. Show stopper, in my opinion.
Two other things immediately struck me after reading the article:
1) $36 million divided by 3 million fans = $12/person, but does any campaign of this sort ever get anything like 100% response? I would say more like $36 million divided by the 10% who would actually send money, which would make it $120/person. Doubtful.
2) We'll get criticism from the press that we are willing to pony up cash for a TV show but not for Tsunami victims Let them whine. There is always famine and disaster somewhere in the world, but people still buy cigarettes, lottery tickets and gourmet cat food. That's life.
The article mentions that a brown dwarf is an object not quite massive enough to jump-start a fusion reaction and become a star. Could a collision with another object such as a large asteroid provide the needed energy and cause a brown dwarf to ignite? I wonder if future astrophysicists will do such colossal experiments.
Economists believe everything we do is rooted in self-interest the way Freud believed everything we do is rooted in sex. People with a religious devotion to a single idea often have trouble seeing the truth. They have their hammer, and everything looks a nail.
Economists have not always found it easy to explain why self-interested people would freely share scarce, privately owned resources... The reason often seems to be that writing open-source software increases the authors' prestige among their peers or gains them experience that might help them in the job market, not to mention that they also find it fun.
Yeah, not to mention that they also find it fun. The pure pleasure of accomplishment and the satisfaction of doing something for others is hard for pointy haired economists to grasp, but I think these are they primary reasons people write oss. But then I got a D in Econ 101, re-took it from a different prof and got a C. So what could I possibly know about human nature?
Quibbling over definitions can be fun. If a bunch of people pool their resources and each takes out what he or she needs, we call it socialism. If a business does the same thing and keeps some of the money, we call it an insurance company.
Yeah, it's amazing that people still use the "liberal media" cliche every time reality doesn't support conservative gospel. Maybe they don't know that 95% of American mass media is owned by seven big corporations, or they think guys like Rupert Murdock who run those outfits are flaming liberals. Or they just don't think period. I'm guessing number 3.
We'll be seeing more and more of these, as the great Land Rush of IP patents continues. Equating intangibles with property is like creating a whole new world, ready to be staked out and fenced off like the American West in the 1800s. Eventually, creating something new and innovative without a battery of lawyers or a big corporation behind you will be as quaint a notion as walking out into the wilderness and setting up a farm.
I wonder if anybody has successfully sued a hotel because they got mugged in the hotel by someone who wasn't connected with the hotel? That sort of case would probably serve as a good precedent for this one.
Good point. I wonder if the law professor quoted in the article would like to tell the RIAA that people who invest time and money going to concerts and buying records should have control over what a record company does with the music? Or for that matter, let her tell Paramount that Star Trek fans who have invested time and money watching the show, reading the books and collecting the action figures should have legal recourse when the show gets cancelled. Don't even get me started on Battlestar Galactica. Cylons are clones? Starbuck is a woman??? You'll be hearing from my lawyers!
For those interested, Associate Law Professor Beth Noveck's blog is here.
When intelligent people suggest that imaginary objects in a game should be considered property, it's more like surrealism than science fiction. Law professor Beth Simone Noveck, quoted in the article believes that a person who "invests" time and money playing a game should have some sort of control over the game. Does this same professor believe that people who "invest" time and money going to concerts and buying records should have control over the music right? I would dearly like to hear Noveck address that question.
I see this as an illustration of the basic fallacy of "intellectual property." If we continue trying to overlay the principles of property on intangibles, we're going to live in a world where we have to act insane to avoid running afoul of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever it is, it seems to be coming from the sysadmin's cube.
Many states suspend drivers licenses for a host of reasons, mainly to collect money. For example, failure to pay parking tickets, library fines, child support... It's just a little bit of leverage that bureaucrats discovered they could use. Wait until the feds have this same capability. Want to be allowed to travel by plane? Better get those library books turned in, terrorist!
Stealing movies leaves a trail. So does bribing Senators. One matters, one doesn't.
Iran's security chief says Iran is safer than Iraq.
In his classic Steal This Book (a fascinating read, now online for free) 60s activist Abbie Hoffman described the following way to get a free trip to Vegas. Many casinos (at least back then) offered free round trip airfare and a room for a weekend, even meals in some cases, but you had to buy like $500 in chips. These were specially marked chips that could not be cashed in, so you had to gamble them away. The trick he suggested was for whoever goes with you to buy an equal number of standard chips upon arrival, so you have $1000 between you, half marked and half not. Then you both sit at a roulette table and bet against each other; one person bets on black, the other bets on red, identical amounts. So you break even on every bet except when 00 comes up. The person with the marked chips bets only those chips. All payoffs are made in standard chips. When the marked chips have all been lost, the two of you should still have a total of approximately $1000 in standard chips. At that point you cash in and enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Same as grandma's formula: one part helping hands and two parts Love.
Hilarious! Wish I had mod points today.
Once, his legs were removed and his torso was hauled around Mansfield in a wagon.
I think that might have been in an episode of Li'l Rascals. Oh-Tay!
When it comes to regulation, the more proactive you are in the private sector the better. Ask the United Federation of Broadcasters.
Welcome to the United States of Intellectual Property, where ownership is everything. Our surveillance cameras observed you taking photos of privately owned structures through the airplane window, and the in-seat microphone recorded you repeating part of Letterman's Top Ten list from last night. Here's your copy of the DMCA. The lawyer assigned to you will be contacting you shortly regarding the initial series of lawsuits you'll be defending yourself against. We hope you enjoy your stay.
I wonder if they considered United Federation of Planets. Even just for a fleeting moment?
I guess it's just a matter of taste. At least you didn't say the Olsens.
I applaud Britain being the first country to officially sanction this research. Here in the United States of Christian Fundamentalism we won't be seeing that happen for a while. Just don't get too far along with it before our corporations buy all your patents, or you might be added to our fearless leader's must-conquer list.
I am Blong, of the Quaz nebula. By using my name without permission you have violated galactic copysnark law. Your puny planet will be destrobulated in 65 metrons.
So true. My old clueless IT director used to post Gartner group quotes outside his cube, next to his huge multicolor graphs of disk space usage, CPU time and other stats about our VAXCluster. The graphs were printed on a $14,000 large-format Tektronix printer, bought only for that purpose and used only by him. These are the guys who make decisions like, "From now on everybody in the company will use software X, because Garner Group says maintaining a heterogeneous platform isn't cost effective (85%)."
I wouldn't have thought of the endless legal questions, but somebody surely will. Show stopper, in my opinion.
Two other things immediately struck me after reading the article:
1) $36 million divided by 3 million fans = $12/person, but does any campaign of this sort ever get anything like 100% response? I would say more like $36 million divided by the 10% who would actually send money, which would make it $120/person. Doubtful.
2) We'll get criticism from the press that we are willing to pony up cash for a TV show but not for Tsunami victims
Let them whine. There is always famine and disaster somewhere in the world, but people still buy cigarettes, lottery tickets and gourmet cat food. That's life.
The article mentions that a brown dwarf is an object not quite massive enough to jump-start a fusion reaction and become a star. Could a collision with another object such as a large asteroid provide the needed energy and cause a brown dwarf to ignite? I wonder if future astrophysicists will do such colossal experiments.
Economists believe everything we do is rooted in self-interest the way Freud believed everything we do is rooted in sex. People with a religious devotion to a single idea often have trouble seeing the truth. They have their hammer, and everything looks a nail.
Economists have not always found it easy to explain why self-interested people would freely share scarce, privately owned resources... The reason often seems to be that writing open-source software increases the authors' prestige among their peers or gains them experience that might help them in the job market, not to mention that they also find it fun.
Yeah, not to mention that they also find it fun. The pure pleasure of accomplishment and the satisfaction of doing something for others is hard for pointy haired economists to grasp, but I think these are they primary reasons people write oss. But then I got a D in Econ 101, re-took it from a different prof and got a C. So what could I possibly know about human nature?
Quibbling over definitions can be fun. If a bunch of people pool their resources and each takes out what he or she needs, we call it socialism. If a business does the same thing and keeps some of the money, we call it an insurance company.
Yeah, it's amazing that people still use the "liberal media" cliche every time reality doesn't support conservative gospel. Maybe they don't know that 95% of American mass media is owned by seven big corporations, or they think guys like Rupert Murdock who run those outfits are flaming liberals. Or they just don't think period. I'm guessing number 3.
We'll be seeing more and more of these, as the great Land Rush of IP patents continues. Equating intangibles with property is like creating a whole new world, ready to be staked out and fenced off like the American West in the 1800s. Eventually, creating something new and innovative without a battery of lawyers or a big corporation behind you will be as quaint a notion as walking out into the wilderness and setting up a farm.
I wonder if anybody has successfully sued a hotel because they got mugged in the hotel by someone who wasn't connected with the hotel? That sort of case would probably serve as a good precedent for this one.
Good point. I wonder if the law professor quoted in the article would like to tell the RIAA that people who invest time and money going to concerts and buying records should have control over what a record company does with the music? Or for that matter, let her tell Paramount that Star Trek fans who have invested time and money watching the show, reading the books and collecting the action figures should have legal recourse when the show gets cancelled. Don't even get me started on Battlestar Galactica. Cylons are clones? Starbuck is a woman??? You'll be hearing from my lawyers!
For those interested, Associate Law Professor Beth Noveck's blog is here.
When intelligent people suggest that imaginary objects in a game should be considered property, it's more like surrealism than science fiction. Law professor Beth Simone Noveck, quoted in the article believes that a person who "invests" time and money playing a game should have some sort of control over the game. Does this same professor believe that people who "invest" time and money going to concerts and buying records should have control over the music right? I would dearly like to hear Noveck address that question.
I see this as an illustration of the basic fallacy of "intellectual property." If we continue trying to overlay the principles of property on intangibles, we're going to live in a world where we have to act insane to avoid running afoul of the law.
Poland has at least 240,000 secret agents, and those are just ones we know about! Dang, that's more than half of one percent of their population!